2002: Donald Trump Favored Invading Iraq

Donald Trump went full Michael Moore last Saturday night in the CBS debate, accusing George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq War, and completely adopting the Left’s no “weapons of mass destruction” slogan.

But wait …as it turns out, when Trump keeps saying he was “always” against the Iraq War, that might not necessarily be true.

Here’s the audio:

From Buzzfeed:

For months, Donald Trump has claimed that he opposed the Iraq War before the invasion began — as an example of his great judgment on foreign policy issues.

But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion.

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

“Yeah I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Anderson Cooper asked him about this Buzzfeed story during tonight’s CNN townhall, and he brushed it off by saying “I may have said that. I was a businessman.” Oh OK. Nothing to see here.


  1. OK, I’ll take a stab at this. (You little-leaguers, don’t try this at home. Teri has been known to eviscerate less-than-capable dissenting opinion with alacrity.)

    “Yeah I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

    I would not categorize such a statement as a ringing endorsement.

    Others may claim Trump said “since 2003 he opposed the war.” Or “he was just being flippant.” These arguments are “Applesauce”. (H/T Scalia)

    In the run-up to the second Gulf War, everyone was for the war. Even Jay Marvin. The war resolution was rejected by one Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee (and Jim Jeffords who was independent at the time.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm Thus, with the steady drumbeat for war, opposition was considered Treason. This vote was taken one month after Trump’s statement.

    So if we want to look in hindsight, which is what we are doing by looking into a statement made by Trump six months before actual hostilities, I would say the second half of Trump’s statement is more telling than the first. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

    Every doctrine of war going back to Sun Tzu emphasizes attacking a retreating army “to the last gasp of man and beast.” George H.W. Bush broke off the attack of retreating Iraqis in the ‘Valley of Death’ when it became unseemly. A-10’s cut the convoy to pieces, the traffic jam only created more targets. George HW Bush didn’t have the stomach, nor the testicular virility (H/T Blago), to complete the victory. That enabled Saddam to put down the ensuing Shia uprising to ‘drain the swamp’ and consolidate power. It was of little wonder, therefore, that Saddam would defy the 14 U.N. resolutions. (This being 20/20 hindsight, mind you.)

    I recall telling you on one show that if we don’t have the stomach for collateral damage we don’t have any business going in. War has to be so terrible that the mere suggestion would get petty tyrants to negotiate in good faith. Anything less is useless. And if you have to jail ‘journalists’ to do that, I’m ok with that too.

    When George Bush decided to re-invade Iraq, he had nearly eight years to accomplish his goals. By the end of the eight years the Democrats had so undermined the effort that it became clear GW Bush no longer had the stomach to win.

    The election of Obama was our unconditional surrender. I recall asking you how surrender would be any different. To this day Obama has done nothing to forward Americanism.

    Yeah, I was for the war. I saw it as a way to pincer Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan, and for quite a few years they were real quiet. Who knew Obama would steal defeat from the jaws of victory? (I mean besides everyone.)

    So, as for Trump making this statement, OK, maybe it is something to consider. But more important to consider is who he chooses for a running mate- that will be the test of vision.

    Look at the alternative: Kasich, who Democrats think should run on their ticket, two ineligible guys, a surgeon, or another Bush.

    See you tomorrow!

    • “Alacrity” just happens to be one of my favorite words of all time! So thanks, M! Now for the substance of your excellent comment. You are so right. Back in 2002, pretty much everyone, other than the barking moonbat Left, was for the Iraq liberation. Why? All those U.N. resolutions, the belief that Saddam Hussein might harbor bin Laden, and a variety of other reasons. Hillary Clinton, of course, notoriously voted for the war, and even B. Hussein couldn’t say for sure that he wouldn’t have done the same thing. As for the first Gulf war, yes, the brilliant advice to leave Saddam in place was Colin Powell’s as I recall. And, once again, GW Bush’s efforts in the 2nd Iraq War were severely undermined by the democrats, for purely political reasons. (There’s a shocker!) As for Trump making this statement, and whether or not he opposed or supported the Iraq liberation, I think it’s silly to relitigate that issue, and of course, Trump is doing so for cynical political reasons. And he says he’s not a politician. Finally, yes, if you don’t have the stomach for the brutality of war, you have no business starting one in the first place. General Sherman: “War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

  2. “Yeah, I guess so” may not be a “ringing endorsement” for the war, but it was certainly not a principled stand against it.

      • Wait a minute. The Dixie Chicks made a political statement. Where are they now? Now you are getting into politics as it relates to commercial enterprises. You can’t expect business people to make a political statement and also make a profit because they are always going to alienate someone. That’s why celebrities with corporate sponsors get dumped when they make political statements.

        If you have to go back 14 years to find something that, maybe, possibly, could be, embarrassing to a candidate, I’d say it says more about how you want to view the candidate.

        The real concern with Trump’s candidacy is how he can achieve the nomination with the full weight of the RNC against him. Will the RNC and their ‘splitter strategy’ go the extra mile and throw their weight towards Rubio at the convention? If Trump prevails there, will they support Hillary like they some said they would? If Cruz doesn’t win on Super Tuesday and then doesn’t suspend his campaign you’ll begin to understand why Mitch McConnell’s Super PAC is supporting Cruz. He becomes a splitter for Rubio too.

        It will be fun to watch the RNC explain why they cannot support their leading candidate in one sentence and then ridicule the DNC for tossing their race to Hillary via superdelegates in the next sentence.

        How many coin flips in a row has Hillary won? I hope someone is keeping track. Bernie wins and Hillary gets more delegates. That’s democracy, right there. The RNC is going to do the same thing.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: